Final rankings

[WarriorInNYC]

I'm sure Chico's will be along shortly to tell you it's all about match-ups and luck and how the best team doesn't always win. And then remind you which experts also agree with his viewpoint.

Well, the best team doesn't always win in the tournament.  Are you going to tell me that LaSalle and FGCU were better teams this year than Georgetown and Gonzaga?

I think Chico's worded his response poorly and really meant that these games should be considered, but not be the end to how we rank the teams from this year.  Yes FGCU won two big tournament games this year, but in no way should they be considered a top-25 team.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Exactly... isn't the whole point of the tournament to determine who is the best team? If not then why bother?

No, the point of the tournament is to determine a champion.  In some cases, the best team wins, in some cases it doesn't.  It most certainly doesn't determine who is the best team, it determines who won the title, a big difference.  

Who am I to argue with John Wooden, Jay Bilas, CM Newton, some guy named Al McGuire, etc.  

And you "bother" in order to determine a champion.

[MerrittsMustache]

No, the point of the tournament is to determine a champion.  In some cases, the best team wins, in some cases it doesn't.  It most certainly doesn't determine who is the best team, it determines who won the title, a big difference.  

Who am I to argue with John Wooden, Jay Bilas, CM Newton, some guy named Al McGuire, etc.  

And you "bother" in order to determine a champion.

It's the same in every sport. You play the regular season to get to the postseason. How teams fare in the postseason is what matters most.

I'd rather be a champion than be "the best team."

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

No, the point of the tournament is to determine a champion.  In some cases, the best team wins, in some cases it doesn't.  It most certainly doesn't determine who is the best team, it determines who won the title, a big difference.  

Who am I to argue with John Wooden, Jay Bilas, CM Newton, some guy named Al McGuire, etc.  

And you "bother" in order to determine a champion.

What is a champion? "A person who has defeated or surpassed all rivals in a competition"

So Louisville defeated all other teams in the league 1:1?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

It's the same in every sport. You play the regular season to get to the postseason. How teams fare in the postseason is what matters most.

I'd rather be a champion than be "the best team."

My point is that any claims that someone is "the best team" don't hold up if they didn't win the tourney. It's a weak argument to say Indiana was the best team, for example. Even though they arguably had the most talent on the floor. They lost and are not the best team.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Respectfully disagree. The tournament games are the most important of the season - and the fairest measuring stick. No trap games, home court, short rest, etc. Not counting the biggest games in the final ranking seems silly.

We know that not to be the case.  Michigan and Michigan State played their games in Michigan.  Of course there is home courts out there.  Seedings, we know have major issues as well...Gonzaga #1...please.  Oregon #12...please.  Who you draw it part of the "luck" of the tournament, it's what makes it great.  Where you play, etc.  A ton of randomness, yes some luck, and of course skill.  It also means the best teams in the land can have a bad day, and they are gone, even if they were to beat those same teams 364 days out of 365.   This is why so many have said time and time again, the best team doesn't always win the title.  The NCAA tournament is about crowing a champion, not necessarily crowning the best team.  This year, it was both.  Arguably most years, that isn't the case.  Al Mcguire...was right...again.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

We know that not to be the case.  Michigan and Michigan State played their games in Michigan.  Of course there is home courts out there.

Was essentially an away game for Michigan. The MSU fans all showed up with the opposing team's colors cheering against them both nights.

[jesmu84]

We know that not to be the case.  Michigan and Michigan State played their games in Michigan.  Of course there is home courts out there.  Seedings, we know have major issues as well...Gonzaga #1...please.  Oregon #12...please.  Who you draw it part of the "luck" of the tournament, it's what makes it great.  Where you play, etc.  A ton of randomness, yes some luck, and of course skill.  It also means the best teams in the land can have a bad day, and they are gone, even if they were to beat those same teams 364 days out of 365.   This is why so many have said time and time again, the best team doesn't always win the title.  The NCAA tournament is about crowing a champion, not necessarily crowning the best team.  This year, it was both.  Arguably most years, that isn't the case.  Al Mcguire...was right...again.

I get what you are saying. But I want to expand...

According to your philosophy.. there are zero sports leagues that determine a champion if they end in a postseason tournament. The closest you might have is the BCS with 1 vs. 2 or maybe european soccer with a "table" season. Is that right? NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB, MLS, any college sport save BCS, etc. No one determines best team, but merely champions?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I get what you are saying. But I want to expand...

According to your philosophy.. there are zero sports leagues that determine a champion if they end in a postseason tournament. The closest you might have is the BCS with 1 vs. 2 or maybe european soccer with a "table" season. Is that right? NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB, MLS, any college sport save BCS, etc. No one determines best team, but merely champions?

Totally incorrect.  Most sports leagues do because it's based on a best of 5, best of 7 type format.  Over that type of format, the best team comes out on top because they can afford to have a bad day...or even bad days.   It's not one an done.

Case in point, the Chicago Bulls won 72 regular season games, but in the playoffs lost 3, including 2 games in the finals.  Would anyone on planet earth not believe the Bulls were the best team in the world that year?  Of course not, but in a one and done they could have lost it...in fact they did lose three playoffs games.  Over a long series, the best are going to win, but in a one game playoff it's a crap shoot.  So for baseball, hockey, and basketball, most often the champion is also the best.  It gets a little tricky with baseball because of the mini-series format that can knock some of the best teams out. 

NCAA hoops, NFL....any one and done scenario makes it much more possible that the best team doesn't actually win the championship.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wall Street Journal article on this a few years ago

http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2010/04/02/the-count-the-best-ncaa-team-doesnt-always-win/

27% of the time the best team wins the NCAA tournament

[MUMonster03]

Totally incorrect.  Most sports leagues do because it's based on a best of 5, best of 7 type format.  Over that type of format, the best team comes out on top because they can afford to have a bad day...or even bad days.   It's not one an done.

You are right that usually the NBA, NHL, and MLB the best tean wins. In the one and done the best team often does not win, look at the NFL, one bad game and your season is over. Do you consider the Ravens the best team last year? Or the Giants the year before? They got hot at the right time.

So in regards to end of the season rankings you don't completely drop a team for having one bad game and you don't bring a team that was never near the top 25 into it just because they won 2 games in March.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

You are right that usually the NBA, NHL, and MLB the best tean wins. In the one and done the best team often does not win, look at the NFL, one bad game and your season is over. Do you consider the Ravens the best team last year? Or the Giants the year before? They got hot at the right time.

So in regards to end of the season rankings you don't completely drop a team for having one bad game and you don't bring a team that was never near the top 25 into it just because they won 2 games in March.

Why should you be able to lose a game en route to a championship? Why should that be forgiven?

[WarriorInNYC]

So in regards to end of the season rankings you don't completely drop a team for having one bad game and you don't bring a team that was never near the top 25 into it just because they won 2 games in March.

Exactly.  Those games should influence the final rankings, but we don't merely flip the results of the tournament and say in that order are the best teams of the year.  We would then be saying that FGCU is better than Georgetown, Gonzaga, etc.

Is Wichita St a better team than Duke, Michigan St, Georgetown, Kansas, Florida, or Indiana?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Is Wichita St a better team than Duke, Michigan St, Georgetown, Kansas, Florida, or Indiana?

yes

[WarriorInNYC]

Why should you be able to lose a game en route to a championship? Why should that be forgiven?

I'm not quite sure what your argument is here....are you saying best of 5 or 7 series should be removed from NHL/NBA/MLB?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

I'm not quite sure what your argument is here....are you saying best of 5 or 7 series should be removed from NHL/NBA/MLB?

its not an argument - it's a question. Why would a tournament that requires the eventual champion to win several straight less authentic than a playoff with best-of series?

[ChicosBailBonds]

You are right that usually the NBA, NHL, and MLB the best tean wins. In the one and done the best team often does not win, look at the NFL, one bad game and your season is over. Do you consider the Ravens the best team last year? Or the Giants the year before? They got hot at the right time.

So in regards to end of the season rankings you don't completely drop a team for having one bad game and you don't bring a team that was never near the top 25 into it just because they won 2 games in March.

I did not consider the Ravens the best team, they were damn good but not the best.  They are the Super Bowl champions, they got gifted a win by a moronic play by a defensive back at the end of the game in Denver...but that's part of winning a championship, there's usually some luck along the way (which leads to some posters here inaccurately saying that I'm implying it's all luck...go figure, totally wrong but that's how some people are).  But no, I would not consider them to be the "best" team.  Some years the best team wins the Super Bowl, some years it doesn't.

I think Jay Bilas captured it pretty well,  "I'm one of those that believes that the best team doesn't always win in this. In other words, in 1985, I thought Georgetown was the best team, and they lost to Villanova in what was an epic game, an epic upset. In 1991 I was an assistant coach on that Duke team that beat UNLV and I thought UNLV was the best team. We happened to clip them. So, the best team doesn't always win, and that's part of the beauty of this tournament."

[ChicosBailBonds]

yes

No.  Different opponents.  Would IU beat Gonzaga...most likely yes.  Would WSU beat Syracuse...most likely no, just as MU and IU lost to Syracuse.  Not apples to apples, it's a tournament afterall.  You don't throw away 4 months of basketball and all of a sudden say one performance for 2 hours defines how good you are.

That's why I agree with the AP because too many people get so damn caught up in the crap shoot they forget everything else.  Is FGCU really a top 25 team?  Hell no.  They couldn't even win their own conference...they got hot for 2 weeks.  There is a difference.  FGCU might have 10 to 12 Big East losses in our conference.  Half the battle in advancing in the tournament is who you play.  Some teams advance further because other upsets happen clearing the deck for them, yet we're supposed to reward that good fortune to that team that continues to advance because they beat a 12 and a 13 instead of a 12 and a 4 seed, for example?  Even though they had NOTHING to do with that 4 seed losing to a 13?  Sorry, that's completely nonsensical.

[ChicosBailBonds]

its not an argument - it's a question. Why would a tournament that requires the eventual champion to win several straight less authentic than a playoff with best-of series?

Six, you are a smart guy....I think you are more than capable of answering that question yourself.  I'm sure you took statistics in college.  Come on man.  Really? 

[MerrittsMustache]

Totally incorrect.  Most sports leagues do because it's based on a best of 5, best of 7 type format.  Over that type of format, the best team comes out on top because they can afford to have a bad day...or even bad days.   It's not one an done.

Case in point, the Chicago Bulls won 72 regular season games, but in the playoffs lost 3, including 2 games in the finals.  Would anyone on planet earth not believe the Bulls were the best team in the world that year?  Of course not, but in a one and done they could have lost it...in fact they did lose three playoffs games.  Over a long series, the best are going to win but in a one game playoff it's a crap shoot.  So for baseball, hockey, and basketball, most often the champion is also the best.  It gets a little tricky with baseball because of the mini-series format that can knock some of the best teams out. 

NCAA hoops, NFL....any one and done scenario makes it much more possible that the best team doesn't actually win the championship.

So the Cardinals teams that won the World Series in 2006 (13th-best record in MLB) and 2011 (6 games back in their division) were the best teams in baseball those seasons?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Six, you are a smart guy....I think you are more than capable of answering that question yourself.  I'm sure you took statistics in college.  Come on man.  Really?  

thanks Chicos - Ill rarely turn down a compliment.

There is no universal definition of "better" across sports. If Indiana won zero games and FGCU won all their games would Indiana be a worse team? Better? They have two potential lottery picks on their roster.

My point is knowing what the game is. Which is the "better" company: Apple or Google? Usually measured through margin, revenue and ultimately market cap. Arguments about design/Eco-friendliness, etc are interesting but opinions and besides the point.

This applies to college basketball in that becoming the champion of the tournament is the whole point. You are the best team if you accomplished the end goal which is a championship.

If you coached your team anticipating a best of 7 series you would have missed the point, even if you had more athletic players, etc.

I'm psyched about MU and our coach, players and their performance. But Louisville was the best team in 2013. That's objective, and I have the most convincing argument: they achieved what everyone else wanted to. They executed, came out on top, and are therefor the best.

The argument for any other measure comes across Crean-ish... Like you'd hang a banner for most NBA-bound kids on a team or highest ranked class of incoming freshman, GAS wins, etc.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So the Cardinals teams that won the World Series in 2006 (13th-best record in MLB) and 2011 (6 games back in their division) were the best teams in baseball those seasons?

I believe I said usually.  Let's put it this way, a team that has to make it based on their record through 162 games, then based on having to win (at the time) 11 games in the playoffs knowing any one loss doesn't eliminate them, is going to be a truer definition of the best team than a one and done. 

If the Chicago Bulls, who won 72 games in the regular season were eliminated on a one and done, would you really argue they weren't the best team that year?  It would be simply they lost that day, but that doesn't mean they weren't the best team.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

If the Chicago Bulls, who won 72 games in the regular season were eliminated on a one and done, would you really argue they weren't the best team that year?  It would be simply they lost that day, but that doesn't mean they weren't the best team.
[/quote]i would argue it because they blew their wad too early... The goal is a championship, not a moral victory.

[ChicosBailBonds]

thanks Chicos - Ill rarely turn down a compliment.

There is no universal definition of "better" across sports. If Indiana won zero games and FGCU won all their games would Indiana be a worse team? Better? They have two potential lottery picks on their roster.

My point is knowing what the game is. Which is the "better" company: Apple or Google? Usually measured through margin, revenue and ultimately market cap. Arguments about design/Eco-friendliness, etc are interesting but opinions and besides the point.

This applies to college basketball in that becoming the champion of the tournament is the whole point. You are the best team if you accomplished the end goal which is a championship.

If you coached your team anticipating a best of 7 series you would have missed the point, even if you had more athletic players, etc.

I'm psyched about MU and our coach, players and their performance. But Louisville was the best team in 2013. That's objective, and I have the most convincing argument: they achieved what everyone else wanted to. They executed, came out on top, and are therefor the best.

The argument for any other measure comes across Crean-ish... Like you'd hang a banner for most NBA-bound kids on a team or highest ranked class of incoming freshman, GAS wins, etc.

Please, it's an argument that Al McGuire made...is it McGuirish?  It's the same argument John Wooden made...is it Woodenish?

Let's play a little game...when you are cheering for MU in the NCAA tournament and you see that a worse seed has the chance to beat a better seed in our side of the bracket....who do you cheer for?  I'd argue 99% of fans cheer for the worse seed....why is that?   Simple, we want an EASIER path to the championship because we do not want to play the BETTER team.  Because we know, the BETTER team has an easier chance of beating us.  We also know, that in college hoops, the BEST teams don't always win, so if one of them can have a bad day and get knocked off, that's good for us.  There's a reason for that....and it's pretty simple.

I'm not one to argue with Al McGuire, John Wooden, etc, etc.  Best team doesn't always win...clear as day.

[jesmu84]

Please, it's an argument that Al McGuire made...is it McGuirish?  It's the same argument John Wooden made...is it Woodenish?

Let's play a little game...when you are cheering for MU in the NCAA tournament and you see that a worse seed has the chance to beat a better seed in our side of the bracket....who do you cheer for?  I'd argue 99% of fans cheer for the worse seed....why is that?   Simple, we want an EASIER path to the championship because we do not want to play the BETTER team.  Because we know, the BETTER team has an easier chance of beating us.  We also know, that in college hoops, the BEST teams don't always win, so if one of them can have a bad day and get knocked off, that's good for us.  There's a reason for that....and it's pretty simple.

I'm not one to argue with Al McGuire, John Wooden, etc, etc.  Best team doesn't always win...clear as day.

We want to win the championship. No matter who we play we want to win the championship to prove we're the best. Be it a easier path or a hard path, the championship is the goal.

And of course you aren't going to argue with them when you support their particular viewpoint on this subject. No one argues when the viewpoints are the same... dumb statement. Al had a different viewpoint on JUCOs than you. Are you still not one to argue with him on that?